# Now we know: it was (and remains) an attempted coup



## GURPS

Thursday evening, Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor of law at Harvard Law School and a Democrat, appeared on Fox News’s  Tucker Carlson Tonight and said about what McCabe revealed to 60 Minutes, “If true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d’état.” The following night, during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Dershowitz went even farther in analyzing what McCabe said about Rod Rosenstein:

_Let’s talk about Rod Rosenstein. He is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. He was the acting attorney general for this case. And he is suggesting using the 25th Amendment that was written to take care of a problem of Woodrow Wilson having a stroke or President Reagan being shot and being on the operating table. These guys [McCabe, Rosenstein, at al] are watching House of Cards instead of reading the Constitution. The Constitution is as clear as can be. The 25th Amendment is applicable only if you’re incapacitated. It’s not a substitute for impeachment; it’s not a substitute for an election. And if Rod Rosenstein actually thought about and suggested wiring the president, [and] invoking the 25thAmendment he should be fired before he has an opportunity to resign. He should be disgraced. The Inspector General of the Justice Department should be looking into it._​
_*This is as close as this country has ever come to the consideration of a coup d’état – a constitutionally unlawfaul coup d’état* [emphasis added.] – against the duly elected president, whether you like him or not, whether you voted against him as I did or not. The Constitution has to prevail. The 25thAmendment has to mean what it says. And when you have a deputy attorney general thinking about circumventing the 25thAmendment, that is close to a Constitutional crisis._​








						Now we know: it was (and remains) an attempted coup
					

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s 60 Minutes interview, airing in full on CBS tonight, is a disaster for the Deep State. His admission during his interview that he and other top FBI and Justice Department officials seriously considered...




					www.americanthinker.com


----------



## vraiblonde

So whatever happened to hanging people for treason when they attempted an overthrow of our government?


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...


vraiblonde said:


> So whatever happened to hanging people for treason when they attempted an overthrow of our government?


Won't be able to do that. Any attempt to end Rosenstein would immediately be challenged as Nazi inspired.


----------



## limblips

vraiblonde said:


> So whatever happened to hanging people for treason when they attempted an overthrow of our government?



Exactly!  We need to go all Benedict Arnold on their collective a$$e$.


----------



## stgislander

LightRoasted said:


> If I may ...
> 
> Won't be able to do that. Any attempt to end Rosenstein would immediately be challenged as Nazi inspired.



From what I recall, Rosenstein was planning to leave (retirement?) not too long after Barr took over as AG.


----------



## transporter

Some basic definitions for you chuckleheads and our resident Guficer 2.0 wannabe:

*



			Definition of coup d'état

Click to expand...

*


> *: *a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics  especially
> *: *the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group











						Definition of COUP D'ÉTAT
					

a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




Just so you morons can understand...the idea that using a Consitutional amendment to remove an inept, incompetent, unfit, or law breaking President is not, under any definition a coup d'etat. 

Here is the relevant wording of the 25th Amendment :



> *Amendment XXV
> 
> Section 4.*
> Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
> 
> Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.











						25th Amendment
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




Now, comrade...chuckleheads...please locate the word "incapacitation" or any variation of the word. The key phrase in Section 4 uses the terminology "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". (Sects 1-3 are not relevant here,nor do they contain the word incapacitated in any of its forms.)

Ok...so Mr. Dershowitz (who, btw, has tossed his credibility aside by his consistent arguing for every position the current President takes...he has become nothing more than a partisan hack.)...uses the term incapacity...so what does that mean??


> *Definition of incapacitated* *: *deprived of capacity or natural power *: *made incapable of or unfit for normal functioning



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incapacitated

Donald Trump has been unfit for the normal functioning of the Office of the Presidency since the day he came down the escalator. Therefore, by the normal definition of "incapacitated", the 25th Amendment became applicable to Trump the moment he completed his oath of office.


----------



## Rommey

transporter said:


> Some basic definitions for you chuckleheads and our resident Guficer 2.0 wannabe:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of COUP D'ÉTAT
> 
> 
> a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you morons can understand...the idea that using a Consitutional amendment to remove an inept, incompetent, unfit, or law breaking President is not, under any definition a coup d'etat.
> 
> Here is the relevant wording of the 25th Amendment :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 25th Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, comrade...chuckleheads...please locate the word "incapacitation" or any variation of the word. The key phrase in Section 4 uses the terminology "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". (Sects 1-3 are not relevant here,nor do they contain the word incapacitated in any of its forms.)
> 
> Ok...so Mr. Dershowitz (who, btw, has tossed his credibility aside by his consistent arguing for every position the current President takes...he has become nothing more than a partisan hack.)...uses the term incapacity...so what does that mean??
> 
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incapacitated
> 
> Donald Trump has been unfit for the normal functioning of the Office of the Presidency since the day he came down the escalator. Therefore, by the normal definition of "incapacitated", the 25th Amendment became applicable to Trump the moment he completed his oath of office.


Split hairs much?



			
				25th said:
			
		

> ...written declaration that the President is *unable* to discharge the powers and duties of his office,...


Tell me, what is one of the synonyms for "unable"....would it be "incapable"? Now the definition of "incapacitate" is: "to make legally *incapable* or ineligible". 

You want to pick and choose one of many definitions while ignoring what most people understand. 



> ...uses the term incapacity...so what does that mean??


What?? you try to present yourself as an educated idiot, and you've already shown you know how to reference a dictionary, so why are you so inept at looking up this word as well?


----------



## Midnightrider

That’s not splitting hairs, it’s english. Words have meanings and there was no coup.


It’s funny watching fox spin you guys up over this bs. However, if there had been an attempted coup Trump would have appointed a SC and prosecuted the players.


----------



## Gilligan

Dershowitz' opinion..or dark boy's?  

I know which one I'm going with.


----------



## Midnightrider

Gilligan said:


> Dershowitz' opinion..or dark boy's?
> 
> I know which one I'm going with.



Poor mo, always needs someone to do his thinking for him


----------



## Bird Dog

Midnightrider said:


> Poor mo, always needs someone to do his thinking for him


Your sexual attraction for Gilligan is is a little strange for a public forum........

I think he is more of a Tranny dude....just sayin’


----------



## GURPS

Midnightrider said:


> Poor mo, always needs someone to do his thinking for him




Right because reading and understanding the words from ;

Alan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer and academic. He is a scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law, 


is having someone thinking for me, If I happen to agree with what was stated.


----------



## GURPS

7 Big Takeaways From Andrew McCabe’s Planned Coup 

The story about Rosenstein proposing to wear a wire was reported by The New York Times in September of last year, although Rosenstein issued a non-descript (and not entirely convincing) denial. Here’s Pelley:



> There were meetings at the Justice Department in which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment. These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.


And:



> They were counting noses. They were not asking cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating, ‘This person would be with us, this person would not be,’ and they were counting noses in that effort. This was not perceived to be a joke.


According to anonymous FBI officials talking to The Times, McCabe and his associates even kept “contemporaneous memos” on their actions and meetings with Trump—again another effort to find the president guilty of some crime. According to one of these memos, Rosenstein and McCabe determined they needed to peel off eight of the 15 cabinet officials. And Rosenstein suggested that he might have supporters “in the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security.”


Yikes. Here we have a formerly powerful and unelected government official, for all the world to see, admitting that the FBI tried to launch a coup against the constitutionally elected president of the United States, in only the first few months of his tenure. But there’s more going on than that. Here are seven quick takeaways on McCabe’s revelation of his planned coup.


1. McCabe Proves Trump Firing Comey Was Justified

2. McCabe and His Co-conspirators Only Ever Had The Dossier to Go On

3. Much Of This Seems Like A Cover-up

4. The Conspirators Might Be Turning On Each Other

5. McCabe Might Be Telling The Truth About Rosenstein

6. The Whole Russia Probe Is Tainted And Corrupt

7. Comey, McCabe, Clapper, And Brennan Are Unpatriotic Dopes


----------



## Midnightrider

Bird Dog said:


> Your sexual attraction for Gilligan is is a little strange for a public forum........
> 
> I think he is more of a Tranny dude....just sayin’


I don’t know how you get anything sexual from my post, but good to see that  his friends know gilligan likes trannys


----------



## vraiblonde

It's kind of frightening to see MR and Trans defending the FBI abusing their power in order to overthrow our government and unseat our elected President.

Don't you remember when liberals were liberal instead of Marxist?


----------



## Midnightrider

GURPS said:


> 7 Big Takeaways From Andrew McCabe’s Planned Coup
> 
> The story about Rosenstein proposing to wear a wire was reported by The New York Times in September of last year, although Rosenstein issued a non-descript (and not entirely convincing) denial. Here’s Pelley:
> 
> 
> And:
> 
> 
> According to anonymous FBI officials talking to The Times, McCabe and his associates even kept “contemporaneous memos” on their actions and meetings with Trump—again another effort to find the president guilty of some crime. According to one of these memos, Rosenstein and McCabe determined they needed to peel off eight of the 15 cabinet officials. And Rosenstein suggested that he might have supporters “in the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security.”
> 
> 
> Yikes. Here we have a formerly powerful and unelected government official, for all the world to see, admitting that the FBI tried to launch a coup against the constitutionally elected president of the United States, in only the first few months of his tenure. But there’s more going on than that. Here are seven quick takeaways on McCabe’s revelation of his planned coup.
> 
> 
> 1. McCabe Proves Trump Firing Comey Was Justified
> 
> 2. McCabe and His Co-conspirators Only Ever Had The Dossier to Go On
> 
> 3. Much Of This Seems Like A Cover-up
> 
> 4. The Conspirators Might Be Turning On Each Other
> 
> 5. McCabe Might Be Telling The Truth About Rosenstein
> 
> 6. The Whole Russia Probe Is Tainted And Corrupt
> 
> 7. Comey, McCabe, Clapper, And Brennan Are Unpatriotic Dopes


Ok dumbass, if all that is true why isn’t trump going after them?


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> It's kind of frightening to see MR and Trans defending the FBI abusing their power in order to overthrow our government and unseat our elected President.
> 
> Don't you remember when liberals were liberal instead of Marxist?


When is trump going to appoint a SC to investigate this coup?


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> Ok dumbass, if all that is true why isn’t trump going after them?



That's an excellent question.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> That's an excellent question.


Occam’s razor

There is no coup there


----------



## Kyle

vraiblonde said:


> Don't you remember when liberals were liberal instead of Marxist?



That would have been the 50s-60s. 

They've been shitbag commies for as long as I remember.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> Occam’s razor
> 
> There is no coup there



Except for the part where it's a matter of public record and not even the people accused are denying it.

Try and suck less, m'kay?


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Except for the part where it's a matter of public record and not even the people accused are denying it.
> 
> Try and suck less, m'kay?


 
There might be things that are public record, but none of them are a coup. If there were public record of a coup and trump didn’t do anything to prosecute it, that would make him the weakest president in modern time.

Again, IF it happened why isn’t trump doing anything about it?


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


>



You need to go live in a country where this crap is acceptable and get out of ours.  You saying it's not a coup doesn't make it not a coup.  It's clearly an attempt by a clandestine organization to overthrow our government and unseat our President.  That would be your basic coup.



> trump didn’t do anything to prosecute it



Go back to civics class and try again.  Do you know ANYTHING about our system of government in this country?  Anything at all?


----------



## GURPS

transporter said:


> Some basic definitions for you chuckleheads and our resident Guficer 2.0 wannabe:


  Now I am a Russian / GRU Hacker ? 

Anyone or Anything that does not conform to YOUR World View is Either Ignorant, Uneducated or Selfish   ..... or a Russian Bot or a Russian From Minsk



transporter said:


> Just so you morons can understand   ...   the idea that using a Constitutional amendment to remove an inept, incompetent, unfit, or law breaking President is not, under any definition a coup d'etat.







transporter said:


> Now, comrade   ...   chuckleheads...please locate the word "incapacitation" or any variation of the word. The key phrase in Section 4 uses the terminology "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". (Sects 1-3 are not relevant here,nor do they contain the word incapacitated in any of its forms.)



Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and Unfounded OPINION




transporter said:


> Ok  ...   so Mr. Dershowitz (who, btw, has tossed his credibility aside by his consistent arguing for every position the current President takes   ...  he has become nothing more than a partisan hack.)   ...   uses the term incapacity  ...  so what does that mean??



Does that include his Opposition to Trump Declaring a National Emergency ? Is Dershowitz Still a HACK then.
FACT of the matter is YOU have utter contempt for ANYONE who holds a World View COUNTER To YOURS 

that person or persons is ignorati, a Russian, Spitbubble, Ivy League Lite ... etc
You are not here to have a discussion, you only want to spew your vile invective, and insults, showing off your alleged  superior intellect 
if ONLY Americans have VOTED for YOUR one TRUE Republcian, we would not be stuck with Trump



transporter said:


> Donald Trump has been unfit for the normal functioning of the Office of the Presidency since the day he came down the escalator. Therefore, by the normal definition of "incapacitated", the 25th Amendment became applicable to Trump the moment he completed his oath of office.




4 Paragraphs and all you are SPEWING is Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and Assumption and making
Ad Hominem  Attacks




transporter said:


> Every post you make is against anyone or any group that doesn't conform to your propagandist viewpoints.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> You need to go live in a country where this crap is acceptable and get out of ours.  You saying it's not a coup doesn't make it not a coup.  It's clearly an attempt by a clandestine organization to overthrow our government and unseat our President.  That would be your basic coup.



What clandestine organization? Even by your own conspiracy theory it was the FBI and they did everything on the record. 

Btw, the 25th is part of the constitution. There is nothing traitorous about discussing using it.



> Go back to civics class and try again.  Do you know ANYTHING about our system of government in this country?  Anything at all?



Coming from the queen of ‘explain this’ third grade civics lessons that cute.

I know that the president has the authority to appoint a SC. He also controls the DOJ. There is nothing stopping him from initiating and investigation except for the fact that there was no coup.


----------



## David

I have no political ideology and I'm a long time independent, and it was quite obvious to me that this whole thing was a coup attempt.

Trump is a political outsider and he was not supposed to win! It was supposed to be either Clinton or Jeb Bush and the DNC and RNC hate him equally. The establishment is furious that he cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership and wants to get the USA out of the establishment's never ending wars. They hate him! That's why, even though I always thought of Trump as a boob before the election, he has my full support now. Just the fact that he cancelled the TPP and did away with the ObamaCareScam penalty makes him a national hero.


----------



## vraiblonde

David said:


> I have no political ideology and I'm a long time independent, and it was quite obvious to me that this whole thing was a coup attempt.
> 
> Trump is a political outsider and he was not supposed to win! It was supposed to be either Clinton or Jeb Bush and the DNC and RNC hate him equally. The establishment is furious that he cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership and wants to get the USA out of the establishment's never ending wars. They hate him! That's why, even though I always thought of Trump as a boob before the election, he has my full support now. Just the fact that he cancelled the TPP and did away with the ObamaCareScam penalty makes him a national hero.



Do you know that this current presidential administration is probably the only time in almost 23 years that you and I have agreed on politics?


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> Coming from the queen of ‘explain this’ third grade civics lessons that cute.



Take an English class while you're at it.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Take an English class while you're at it.


So there was no coup, no clandestine organization, the 25th is a constitutional amendment so there is nothing traitorous about discussing it, and trump could appoint a SC or direct his DOJ to investigate........


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> So there was no coup, no clandestine organization, the 25th is a constitutional amendment so there is nothing traitorous about discussing it, and trump could appoint a SC or direct his DOJ to investigate........



And get some psychiatric care.


----------



## Toxick

Midnightrider said:


> Btw, the 25th is part of the constitution. There is nothing traitorous about discussing using it.




This is probably the best (read: only) sensible argument I've seen yet.




Although "I don't like the sumbitch" is not necessarily cause for invoking the 25th.


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...


Midnightrider said:


> So there was no coup, no clandestine organization, the 25th is a constitutional amendment so there is nothing traitorous about discussing it, and trump could appoint a SC or direct his DOJ to investigate........



When it is used as a guise, to circumvent the will of the people, to surreptitiously remove a properly elected, in good health, sitting President, it is.


----------



## Midnightrider

Toxick said:


> This is probably the best (read: only) sensible argument I've seen yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although "I don't like the sumbitch" is not necessarily cause for invoking the 25th.


Exactly. 



LightRoasted said:


> If I may ...
> 
> 
> When it is used as a guise, to circumvent the will of the people, to surreptitiously remove a properly elected, in good health, sitting President, it is.


When did they do that? Allesgely a few people discussed it and decided against. That is actually their responsibility under the amendment/constitution.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> When is trump going to appoint a SC to investigate this coup?



Can you give the specific reason Rosenstein suggested invoking the 25th?  Because McCabe didn't disclose this in his interview.  You do know the intent of invoking the 25th is to remove the president from power.  It has specific reasons it can be invoked.  What was the reason for Trump? 

Can you explain why Rosenstein would feel he should break the law and sneak a recording device into the WH?  I mean, what could he possibly do with the recording?  He certainly couldn't use it as evidence since it was illegally obtained.  He has to know he would go to prison for doing such a thing.

It was clear their intent was to find a way to get Trump out of that WH.  Since Rosenstein's attempts to illegal record Trump and invoke the 25th failed, they resorted to a SC. 

Or, was McCabe lying about all of it?  Which I am willing to believe.  He should be in prison.

Coups take of sorts of forms.  This was a failed attempt at a coup.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Can you give the specific reason Rosenstein suggested invoking the 25th?  Because McCabe didn't disclose this in his interview.  You do know the intent of invoking the 25th is to remove the president from power.  It has specific reasons it can be invoked.  What was the reason for Trump?
> 
> Can you explain why Rosenstein would feel he should break the law and sneak a recording device into the WH?  I mean, what could he possibly do with the recording?  He certainly couldn't use it as evidence since it was illegally obtained.  He has to know he would go to prison for doing such a thing.
> 
> It was clear their intent was to find a way to get Trump out of that WH.  Since Rosenstein's attempts to illegal record Trump and invoke the 25th failed, they resorted to a SC.
> 
> Or, was McCabe lying about all of it?  Which I am willing to believe.  He should be in prison.
> 
> Coups take of sorts of forms.  This was a failed attempt at a coup.


No, a constitutional action is not a coup. I don’t care how you slice it. 

I didn’t watch McCabes interview, but I havent read anything that indicates rosestein planned on breaking the law. 

But that still doesn’t answer the question 
 Why doesn’t trump appoint a SC to investigate this coup if it happened? IS he just a wuss?


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> No, a constitutional action is not a coup. I don’t care how you slice it.
> 
> I didn’t watch McCabes interview, but I havent read anything that indicates rosestein planned on breaking the law.
> 
> But that still doesn’t answer the question
> Why doesn’t trump appoint a SC to investigate this coup if it happened? IS he just a wuss?



Well, I suggest you watch the interview before you make statements out of that context.

Why Trump won't pursue it at this point, I don't know.  I only know what I think should happen.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Well, I suggest you watch the interview before you make statements out of that context.
> 
> Why Trump won't pursue it at this point, I don't know.  I only know what I think should happen.



Why not quote the part you are talking about?


The reason trump isn’t is because it’s a nonstarter. A constitutional action is by definition not a coup.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Why not quote the part you are talking about?
> 
> 
> The reason trump isn’t is because it’s a nonstarter. A constitutional action is by definition not a coup.



I have no interest in doing your homework for you.  I watched the interview and McCabe emphatically stated that Rosenstein 1) suggested illegally wearing a wore into the WH and 2) suggested invoking the 25th.  Watch the interview.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Midnightrider said:


> What clandestine organization? Even by your own conspiracy theory it was the FBI and they did everything on the record.
> 
> Btw, the 25th is part of the constitution. There is nothing traitorous about discussing using it.
> 
> Coming from the queen of ‘explain this’ third grade civics lessons that cute.
> 
> I know that the president has the authority to appoint a SC. He also controls the DOJ. There is nothing stopping him from initiating and investigation except for the fact that there was no coup.



Trying to stretch the amendment to mean something that it obviously does not makes it unconstitutional.  As much as people may dislike him and think he is doing a terrible job does not make him incapable, incapacitated, and unable to do the job.  

People, like you, saying he is unfit, is nothing but an opinion.  He is every bit as capable as  the day he was elected, nothing there has changed.  The 25th is obviously meant for a president that has had a some sort of medical event such as a stroke and made incapable.  

Trying to use the 25th to do something it was not intended to do is no more legal than me building a nuclear weapon and saying the 2nd amendment protects that.


----------



## Midnightrider

PeoplesElbow said:


> Trying to stretch the amendment to mean something that it obviously does not makes it unconstitutional.  As much as people may dislike him and think he is doing a terrible job does not make him incapable, incapacitated, and unable to do the job.
> 
> People, like you, saying he is unfit, is nothing but an opinion.  He is every bit as capable as  the day he was elected, nothing there has changed.  The 25th is obviously meant for a president that has had a some sort of medical event such as a stroke and made incapable.
> 
> Trying to use the 25th to do something it was not intended to do is no more legal than me building a nuclear weapon and saying the 2nd amendment protects that.


Where did I say I thought he was unfit? Its the people closest to him who are supposed to make that call. 
They didn’t stretch anything. They talked about an ammenesment. Not only that, they took no action. That’s not a coup


PsyOps said:


> I have no interest in doing your homework for you.  I watched the interview and McCabe emphatically stated that Rosenstein 1) suggested illegally wearing a wore into the WH and 2) suggested invoking the 25th.  Watch the interview.



Then it should be really easy for you to find a quote that says he planned an illegal tape recording. 
Invoking the 25th is in no way illegal or wrong. It’s an amendment for Christ’s sake. That is what it is there for.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Then it should be really easy for you to find a quote that says he planned an illegal tape recording.
> Invoking the 25th is in no way illegal or wrong. It’s an amendment for Christ’s sake. That is what it is there for.



The Attorney General and Director of the FBI have no authority on their own to invoke the 25th.  There have been not defined grounds outlined in the 25th that McCabe stipulated Rosenstein would use.  

I never said invoking the 25th would have been illegal; I said using a wire in the WH without permission would have been illegal.  

Here, I'll do this for you:









						Andrew McCabe: The full 60 Minutes interview
					

Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe tells 60 Minutes about taking over for James Comey, starting investigations of President Trump, interactions with the president and his own firing




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> The Attorney General and Director of the FBI have no authority on their own to invoke the 25th.  There have been not defined grounds outlined in the 25th that McCabe stipulated Rosenstein would use.
> 
> I never said invoking the 25th would have been illegal; I said using a wire in the WH without permission would have been illegal.
> 
> Here, I'll do this for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew McCabe: The full 60 Minutes interview
> 
> 
> Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe tells 60 Minutes about taking over for James Comey, starting investigations of President Trump, interactions with the president and his own firing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com


Would it have been? Omarisa did it and wasn’t prosecuted. But there are other ways he could have legally worn a wire. The suggestion does not mean it would necessarily be an illegal wire. These are the guys who got numerous warrants in during this investigation. Why would they all of the sudden go illegal?


----------



## Bann

vraiblonde said:


> So whatever happened to hanging people for treason when they attempted an overthrow of our government?


RIGHT!???  I just said to Foxhound, they should be shot!


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Would it have been? Omarisa did it and wasn’t prosecuted. But there are other ways he could have legally worn a wire. The suggestion does not mean it would necessarily be an illegal wire. These are the guys who got numerous warrants in during this investigation. Why would they all of the sudden go illegal?



Yes, it is illegal.  Trump seems to not want to press it with Omarosa.  It's his prerogative to press charges.  We're talking about a guy, in a very powerful position, conspiring to 1) illegally record the president to 2) somehow gather evidence to invoke the 25th.  

Aren't you the least bit concerned that these people that are supposed to be enforcing the law to protect the American people are conspiring to find ways to take the down a president they are simply pissed off at for firing their buddy - Comey?  None of this scares you at all?

I know what your answer is going to be.  The fact that you have such deep opinions about something that you didn't even bother to gather the facts about tell me you're too interested in unfounded opinions than facts and truth.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Yes, it is illegal.  Trump seems to not want to press it with Omarosa.  It's his prerogative to press charges.  We're talking about a guy, in a very powerful position, conspiring to 1) illegally record the president to 2) somehow gather evidence to invoke the 25th.
> 
> Aren't you the least bit concerned that these people that are supposed to be enforcing the law to protect the American people are conspiring to find ways to take the down a president they are simply pissed off at for firing their buddy - Comey?  None of this scares you at all?
> 
> I know what your answer is going to be.  The fact that you have such deep opinions about something that you didn't even bother to gather the facts about tell me you're too interested in unfounded opinions than facts and truth.


I’ve looked and the only place I see ‘illegal recording’ coming out of McCabes mouth is in your posts. 

I would be very concerned if I thought that is what happened. But it looks to me like there was plenty of smoke to initiate the investigation. How many convictions is it going to take before you get concerned about the trump campaign?


----------



## TCROW

vraiblonde said:


> So whatever happened to hanging people for treason when they attempted an overthrow of our government?



Clearly you’re making that up as there has never been a single US citizen hung or otherwise executed for treason. 

Don’t use words of which you don’t understand the meaning.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> Would it have been? Omarisa did it and wasn’t prosecuted. But there are other ways he could have legally worn a wire. The suggestion does not mean it would necessarily be an illegal wire. These are the guys who got numerous warrants in during this investigation. Why would they all of the sudden go illegal?


The FISA Warrants were illegal from the get-go.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> I’ve looked and the only place I see ‘illegal recording’ coming out of McCabes mouth is in your posts.
> 
> I would be very concerned if I thought that is what happened. But it looks to me like there was plenty of smoke to initiate the investigation. How many convictions is it going to take before you get concerned about the trump campaign?



How many people have been convicted of Collusion?


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> The FISA Warrants were illegal from the get-go.


Because trump said so in a tweet?

If that is true why no prosecution, what is trump waiting for?


----------



## Ken King

TCROW said:


> Clearly you’re making that up as there has never been a single US citizen hung or otherwise executed for treason.
> 
> Don’t use words of which you don’t understand the meaning.


Really?  It might have been a while ago, but John Brown, Mary Surratt, William Mumford, were all hung for treason.


----------



## TCROW

Ken King said:


> Really?  It might have been a while ago, but John Brown, Mary Surratt, William Mumford, were all hung for treason.



John Brown was execute by the Commonwealth of VA (not the U.S.) of which Harper's Ferry was then a part.

Surratt was convicted of and executed for Conspiracy against the U.S. Mumford was convicted of treason but was executed for ripping down the U.S. flag during the Civil War.


----------



## SamSpade

I think it's appropriate and useful to examine these kinds of events this way --

Imagine if the year wasn't 2017, but 2009. Imagine if law enforcement and members of the Department of Justice were doing
the SAME THINGS - but with Obama. For those on the left - would that sort of thing created the same outrage - in YOU?
Imagine if you will how you'd react if the target was Obama, and people were trying to remove HIM from office.

I think the thing is creepy, and it's bizarre that these guys are talking about it as though they were doing
something brave. If the media hadn't spun this story about Trump the Manchurian Candidate, we would all be
similarly outraged that people would brag about spying on the President.


----------



## TCROW

SamSpade said:


> I think it's appropriate and useful to examine these kinds of events this way --
> 
> Imagine if the year wasn't 2017, but 2009. Imagine if law enforcement and members of the Department of Justice were doing
> the SAME THINGS - but with Obama. For those on the left - would that sort of thing created the same outrage - in YOU?
> Imagine if you will how you'd react if the target was Obama, and people were trying to remove HIM from office.
> 
> I think the thing is creepy, and it's bizarre that these guys are talking about it as though they were doing
> something brave. If the media hadn't spun this story about Trump the Manchurian Candidate, we would all be
> similarly outraged that people would brag about spying on the President.



I think one day you'll wake up extremely surprised to learn the sorts of things federal law enforcement and intelligence apparatus employees are paid to do for the nation.


----------



## SamSpade

TCROW said:


> I think one day you'll wake up extremely surprised to learn the sorts of things federal law enforcement and intelligence apparatus employees are paid to do for the nation.


I do know that 25 years ago, people I work with were being pressured by higher ups to "modify" some of the economic statistics they publish every month. I'm aware of the sleaziness of Washington.

I'm just surprised that someone would admit - and defend it.


----------



## CPUSA

Midnightrider said:


> Then it should be really easy for you to find a quote that says he planned an illegal tape recording. Then it should be really easy for you to go find it yourself. Stop being laz...sorry, you ARE a socialist so laziness comes naturally for you
> Invoking the 25th is in no way illegal or wrong. Until they planned to invoke it illegally


Why does actual LAW escape you so easily?


----------



## Midnightrider

CPUSA said:


> Why does actual LAW escape you so easily?


Explain how discussing using the 25th constitutes using it illegally.

I looked, that BS about an illegal wire is not in the tape. BTW, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction when it comes to wires and bugs. 


SamSpade said:


> I think it's appropriate and useful to examine these kinds of events this way --
> 
> Imagine if the year wasn't 2017, but 2009. Imagine if law enforcement and members of the Department of Justice were doing
> the SAME THINGS - but with Obama. For those on the left - would that sort of thing created the same outrage - in YOU?
> Imagine if you will how you'd react if the target was Obama, and people were trying to remove HIM from office.
> 
> I think the thing is creepy, and it's bizarre that these guys are talking about it as though they were doing
> something brave. If the media hadn't spun this story about Trump the Manchurian Candidate, we would all be
> similarly outraged that people would brag about spying on the President.


If, what are you talking IF this happened to Obama. There was the exact same Manchurian candidate BS it was just the socialists and Muslims at the heart of the conspiracy rather than the Russians. Since they couldn’t use the 25th they tried to go ‘full birther’ on Obama and they were led by none other than the current Cheeto in Cheif.


----------



## SamSpade

Midnightrider said:


> they tried to go ‘full birther’ on Obama



Really? Where was the press on that? The outrage from the Senate and House?
The years long investigations, and the never-ending coverage of it in the press?
The marches, protests, the assaults on social media?
The constant drumbeat from Hollywood, TV, late night talk show hosts, the evening news,
pundits on talk shows - all aligned against the President because he wasn't a citizen?
Do you really think they're the same?

You cannot equate the musings of Alex Jones and conspiracy theorists to the second in command at the FBI
trying to find a way to take down the President. NOTHING has ever been done to any previous occupant
of the Oval Office on the scale of what is being done now. And it is clear enough from this weekend's revelations
that they had nothing to precipitate an investigation other than resentment and revenge.


----------



## Midnightrider

SamSpade said:


> Really? Where was the press on that? The outrage from the Senate and House?
> The years long investigations, and the never-ending coverage of it in the press?
> The marches, protests, the assaults on social media?
> The constant drumbeat from Hollywood, TV, late night talk show hosts, the evening news,
> pundits on talk shows - all aligned against the President because he wasn't a citizen?
> Do you really think they're the same?
> 
> You cannot equate the musings of Alex Jones and conspiracy theorists to the second in command at the FBI
> trying to find a way to take down the President. NOTHING has ever been done to any previous occupant
> of the Oval Office on the scale of what is being done now. And it is clear enough from this weekend's revelations
> that they had nothing to precipitate an investigation other than resentment and revenge.


That’s some hilarious revisionist history.

Trump, the current president lead the birther charge. There were numerous investigations and lawsuits and I’m pretty sure the idiot birthers took it all the way to scotus. 

Funny how that revenge has somehow lead to so many crimes being uncovered and so many convictions


----------



## GURPS

Midnightrider said:


> Trump, the current president lead the birther charge.



Bull Chit


----------



## Midnightrider

GURPS said:


> Bull Chit












						How Donald Trump Perpetuated the 'Birther' Movement for Years
					






					abcnews.go.com


----------



## SamSpade

Midnightrider said:


> That’s some hilarious revisionist history.
> 
> Trump, the current president lead the birther charge.



And it had about as much traction in the press as the "truther" campaign (that's the one where Bush
orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and the "missile" attack on the Pentagon).

I'm sorry, but in terms of scope, they're not equivalent.



Midnightrider said:


> Funny how that revenge has somehow lead to so many crimes being uncovered and so many convictions



If by that you mean the Trump/Russian collusion stuff, has anyone been convicted of a crime that actually
has to do with what they're investigating? I see people being convicted of stuff that happened over a decade ago
and people being charged with lying - but so far nothing to do with "collusion".

We have Scooter Libby as the poster boy for an investigation gone silly - a man convicted for perjury and obstruction
of justice - for a crime the prosecutor already KNEW who had done it. Heck, we had people go to jail during the
Red Scare and they didn't do a damned thing.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Since they couldn’t use the 25th they tried to go ‘full birther’ on Obama and they were led by none other than the current Cheeto in Cheif.



I thought they were led by the Clinton campaign in 2008, when one of her supporters (Philip Berg) actually filed lawsuits against Mr. Obama.

Wait, yes, that's exactly what happened.  Unless, of course, you can find the lawsuit brought by Trump before that, it would seem you are (yet again) wrong even in your attempt to deflect, let alone the initial point.


----------



## Midnightrider

SamSpade said:


> And it had about as much traction in the press as the "truther" campaign (that's the one where Bush
> orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and the "missile" attack on the Pentagon).
> 
> I'm sorry, but in terms of scope, they're not equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> If by that you mean the Trump/Russian collusion stuff, has anyone been convicted of a crime that actually
> has to do with what they're investigating? I see people being convicted of stuff that happened over a decade ago
> and people being charged with lying - but so far nothing to do with "collusion".
> 
> We have Scooter Libby as the poster boy for an investigation gone silly - a man convicted for perjury and obstruction
> of justice - for a crime the prosecutor already KNEW who had done it. Heck, we had people go to jail during the
> Red Scare and they didn't do a damned thing.


You are kidding right?
It got covered plenty, both from the ‘he is a birther’ side and the ‘can you believe these idiot birther’ side.




__





						Fox News Goes Full Birther
					

Following Donald Trump's lead, Fox News figures have recently embraced or promoted aspects of the birther conspiracy theory by falsely claiming that President Obama has not produced his birth certificate, or by hosting birthers to hype their discredited theories unchallenged.




					www.mediamatters.org
				





It sure looks like roger stone had something to do with what they are investigating.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> Explain how discussing using the 25th constitutes using it illegally.



They were discussing it in context of drumming up something to remove the President that we elected.

It's dismaying that someone has to explain that to you.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> They were discussing it in context of drumming up something to remove the President that we elected.
> 
> It's dismaying that someone has to explain that to you.


How else would anyone discuss it? That’s the purpose of the 25th. Where is he ‘illegal’ part?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Btw, the 25th is part of the constitution. There is nothing traitorous about discussing using it.


There's no reason to invoke the 25th, so an attempt to do so is like locking up an opponent when no crime was committed.  Attempting to abuse the constitution, not follow the constitution, is the coup.  It's really pretty simple.

But, how do I know there's no good reason to invoke the 25th?  Virtually no one would.  Even the people who hate Trump didn't think it rose to any level close to invoking the 25th.  So, trying to do so as a subordinate to the Cabinet level, when the Cabinet members won't do it - that's a coup attempt.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> How else would anyone discuss it? That’s the purpose of the 25th. Where is he ‘illegal’ part?



You cannot possibly be this obtuse.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> How else would anyone discuss it? That’s the purpose of the 25th. Where is he ‘illegal’ part?


Who said it was illegal?

It's a coup attempt, not a case of being illegal to discuss.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> You cannot possibly be this obtuse.


Explain how else you would use it if not to remove a duly elected president?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Explain how else you would use it if not to remove a duly elected president?


WHO?

YOu have to think about it all, not just the parts you like to think about.

There's no reason to invoke the 25th, so an attempt to do so is like locking up an opponent when no crime was committed.  Attempting to abuse the constitution, not follow the constitution, is the coup.  It's really pretty simple.

 But, how do I know there's no good reason to invoke the 25th?  Virtually no one would.  Even the people who hate Trump didn't think it rose to any level close to invoking the 25th.  So, *trying to do so as a subordinate to the Cabinet level*, when the Cabinet members won't do it - that's a coup attempt.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> Explain how else you would use it if not to remove a duly elected president?



You explain it, troll.  You're the one insisting that it's not a coup attempt.

You know what?  Don't bother.  I'm zenning you out, too.  There's only so much stupid I can take in any given day and you've exceeded your limit.


----------



## Monello

We are officially a banana republic.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

I guess "coup" is the word of the week.


----------



## TCROW

Chris0nllyn said:


> I guess "coup" is the word of the week.



Don’t forget treason.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> You explain it, troll.  You're the one insisting that it's not a coup attempt.
> 
> You know what?  Don't bother.  I'm zenning you out, too.  There's only so much stupid I can take in any given day and you've exceeded your limit.


 

I have explained it. Discussing the use of a constitutional amendment is by definition not a coup.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Discussing the use of a constitutional amendment is by definition not a coup.


There's no reason to invoke the 25th, so an attempt to do so is like locking up an opponent when no crime was committed.  Attempting to abuse the constitution, not follow the constitution, is the coup.  It's really pretty simple.

 But, how do I know there's no good reason to invoke the 25th?  Virtually no one would.  Even the people who hate Trump didn't think it rose to any level close to invoking the 25th.  So, *trying to do so as a subordinate to the Cabinet level*, when the Cabinet members won't do it - that's a coup attempt.


----------



## Kyle

vraiblonde said:


> You cannot possibly be this obtuse.


Wanna bet?


----------



## Kyle

Monello said:


> We are officially a banana republic.



I prefer apricots.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> I’ve looked and the only place I see ‘illegal recording’ coming out of McCabes mouth is in your posts.
> 
> I would be very concerned if I thought that is what happened. But it looks to me like there was plenty of smoke to initiate the investigation. How many convictions is it going to take before you get concerned about the trump campaign?



Quote from McCabe: "... and in the context of that conversation, the deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the White House.  He said 'I never get searched when I go into the White House.  So, I could easily wear a recording device they wouldn't know was there.'"

If recording the president, without his (or anyone else's in the WH) knowledge was legal, why would have to sneak a recording device in?

I'm still waiting for that "Trump collusion" thing to come out from Mueller.  Two years and still nothing.  Just because I had a lot of friend who committed crimes doesn't mean I'm guilty of any crime.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> I have explained it. Discussing the use of a constitutional amendment is by definition not a coup.



Well, given that they had no justification for even thinking of invoking it give one reason to believe they had faulty intentions of removing the president.  And, since the 25th failed them, move on to the next attempt - a special counsel.  Two years and nothing on Trump.  

Keep the faith MR.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Quote from McCabe: "... and in the context of that conversation, the deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the White House.  He said 'I never get searched when I go into the White House.  So, I could easily wear a recording device they wouldn't know was there.'"
> 
> If recording the president, without his (or anyone else's in the WH) knowledge was legal, why would have to sneak a recording device in?
> 
> I'm still waiting for that "Trump collusion" thing to come out from Mueller.  Two years and still nothing.  Just because I had a lot of friend who committed crimes doesn't mean I'm guilty of any crime.


Because trump is less likely to incriminate himself if he sees Rosenstein holding a microphone 

 That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> Because trump is less likely to incriminate himself if he sees Rosenstein holding a microphone
> 
> That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction




*That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction *

One of the most stupid things I have read in a long while.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> *That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction *
> 
> One of the most stupid things I have read in a long while.


Which part do you think is incorrect? Because that is the law in DC and why omarosa wasn’t prosecuted for doing it


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> Which part do you think is incorrect? Because that is the law in DC and why omarosa wasn’t prosecuted for doing it



DC law does not mean much in the WH, but Federal law does and she could have been prosecuted for taping there.
If she actually did.
She made a lot of claims but have you heard any tapes?
If so please give us a link to them I would love hearing this foul mouthed butch cursing Kelly


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> DC law does not mean much in the WH, but Federal law does and she could have been prosecuted for taping there.
> If she actually did.
> She made a lot of claims but have you heard any tapes?
> If so please give us a link to them I would love hearing this foul mouthed butch cursing Kelly


 

Federal law says only one party needs to consent, and there is plenty of precedent that recording public officials is a constitutional right.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Because trump is less likely to incriminate himself if he sees Rosenstein holding a microphone
> 
> That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction



Your denial is unsurprising.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Your denial is unsurprising.


I have shown that one party consent is the law in both the district and federally. What exactly am I in denial over? There is nothing inherently illegal about recording someone, even the president, in the whitehouse.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> I have shown that one party consent is the law in both the district and federally. What exactly am I in denial over? There is nothing inherently illegal about recording someone, even the president, in the whitehouse.


Contrary to what you try to portray, I don't believe that you are stupid.  You know that it's not that simple. 

If it's a pre-decisional conversation, it is likely to be covered by Executive privilege.  If the conversation is held in a place that is not allowed to have recording devices, it is illegal.  There's no simple answer regardless of how much you want there to be.


----------



## TCROW

Midnightrider said:


> I have shown that one party consent is the law in both the district and federally. What exactly am I in denial over? There is nothing inherently illegal about recording someone, even the president, in the whitehouse.



I'm tracking with you for the most part, but I think one party consent is a bit more nuanced in this case. For example, when I used to work within DOD, I could not carry a phone in to a secure facility. Is there a chance the WH could be considered as such and therefore not quite be subject to one party consent?

I don't know, I'm asking your thoughts.


----------



## WingsOfGold

Midnightrider said:


> Which part do you think is incorrect? Because that is the law in DC and why omarosa wasn’t prosecuted for doing it


Has it been proven she in fact did wear one, where is the tape?


----------



## Hijinx

I already asked that and got a laugh meme.
I asked for a link also.

If we were playing poker it would be said that he is bluffing, but here in the forums he is just full of sh*t.


----------



## WingsOfGold

Hijinx said:


> I already asked that and got a laugh meme.
> I asked for a link also.
> 
> If we were playing poker it would be said that he is bluffing, but here in the forums he is just full of sh*t.


Maybe the ghetto tramp is holding out for a 50 million dollar payday from Putin?


----------



## Midnightrider

TCROW said:


> I'm tracking with you for the most part, but I think one party consent is a bit more nuanced in this case. For example, when I used to work within DOD, I could not carry a phone in to a secure facility. Is there a chance the WH could be considered as such and therefore not quite be subject to one party consent?
> 
> I don't know, I'm asking your thoughts.


I’m sure that there are places in the whitehouse where carrying a recording device would be illegal. I am also betting the deputy/acting AG knows what he could theoretically do within the law. There are lots of places, including on the phone, where they could legally record the conversation.


----------



## Bird Dog

TC and MR are talking to themselves........how cute


----------



## BOP

Midnightrider said:


> That’s some hilarious revisionist history.
> 
> Trump, the current president lead the birther charge. There were numerous investigations and lawsuits and I’m pretty sure the idiot birthers took it all the way to scotus.
> 
> Funny how that revenge has somehow lead to so many crimes being uncovered and so many convictions


Speaking of revisionist history, that came out of your girl Hilldebeast's camp.  Trump was certainly on board with it at one point, but that's where it started.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> I have shown that one party consent is the law in both the district and federally. What exactly am I in denial over? There is nothing inherently illegal about recording someone, even the president, in the whitehouse.



You've shown you don't know the first thing about the White House.  McCabe stated that Rosenstein was going to sneak a recording device in.  He stated that Rosenstein said he never gets searched and could easily SNEAK one in.  Do you think if WH security had searched him and found this recording device they would have just let him keep it on him?  Not only would he have had it confiscated, they would have removed him from the WH and Trump would have been informed that Rosenstein was attempting to illegally record him, and Rosenstein would have been fired.  You are completely ignorant of this fact because 1) you didn't bother to watch the video and gain an informed opinion on it, and 2) you like to make up your own facts on things.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> You've shown you don't know the first thing about the White House.  McCabe stated that Rosenstein was going to sneak a recording device in.  He stated that Rosenstein said he never gets searched and could easily SNEAK one in.  Do you think if WH security had searched him and found this recording device they would have just let him keep it on him?  Not only would he have had it confiscated, they would have removed him from the WH and Trump would have been informed that Rosenstein was attempting to illegally record him, and Rosenstein would have been fired.  You are completely ignorant of this fact because 1) you didn't bother to watch the video and gain an informed opinion on it, and 2) you like to make up your own facts on things.


You make a lot of assumptions but none of them are based on fact. What law would Rosenstein have been breaking?

It’s really that simple. Name the law he would be breaking by recording in the whitehouse. 

BTW, you still haven’t shown the quote where McCabe said Rosenstein would do anything illegal.


----------



## Hijinx

When you dig a hole you cannot get out of digging it deeper is not a wise move.


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...


Midnightrider said:


> Which part do you think is incorrect? Because that is the law in DC and why omarosa wasn’t prosecuted for doing it


DC law is not superior to Federal law. That also means that DC law has no jurisdiction in Federal buildings. Once one steps into a Federal building, Federal law immediately applies over that of the district. Just look at all the security signage. Everything law quoted as, "in violation off", is, (United State Code), USC this and USC that. Everyone who is anyone knows what applies.


----------



## Kyle

LightRoasted said:


> If I may ...
> 
> DC law is not superior to Federal law. That also means that DC law has no jurisdiction in Federal buildings. Once one steps into a Federal building, Federal law immediately applies over that of the district. Just look at all the security signage. Everything law quoted as, "in violation off", is, (United State Code), USC this and USC that. Everyone who is anyone knows what applies.




MR attended the same preschool as Chris so he knows everything.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> You make a lot of assumptions but none of them are based on fact. What law would Rosenstein have been breaking?
> 
> It’s really that simple. Name the law he would be breaking by recording in the whitehouse.
> 
> BTW, you still haven’t shown the quote where McCabe said Rosenstein would do anything illegal.



I work in a secure government facility.  We are not allowed to bring cell phones, recording devices, transmitting devices (such as fitbits), cameras...  If you're caught with one, the device will be confiscated and you will likely be arrested.  Charges would be determined based on whether it was determined to be accidental or intentional.  Omarosa should have been charged with violating Nationals Security Rules and Regulations established by DHS and the White House.  









						Did Omarosa break the law by secretly taping her firing in White House Situation Room?
					

It's not entirely clear whether Omarosa's release of her secret tape of her firing in the White House Situation Room violated criminal law, but she probably should get a lawyer anyway.



					www.usatoday.com
				




"Juliette Kayyem, a former top Homeland Security official under President Obama who is now a CNN national security analyst, was aghast at Omarosa's admission during Sunday's  "Meet the Press" show, the official start of Omarosa's national book tour...

... In a CNN story published Sunday, Kayyem wrote that "external devices" such as smartphones or recorders are strictly prohibited from the Situation Room"...

... "The fact that the recording exists is shocking; that it allegedly happened in the most secure room in the White House – known as a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) – would represent a violation of strict internal procedures prohibiting unsecure devices there," Kayyem wrote.  "The goal is to keep America safe." 

Why she wasn't charged, I don't know.  But, Rosenstein conspired to illegally record Trump.  

I'll grant you your ignorance because you don't work in this environment.  But you're speaking out of your ass if you think this would not be a violation of the law governing SCIF and protected government facilities.  You ought to stick to what you know.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> I work in a secure government facility.  We are not allowed to bring cell phones, recording devices, transmitting devices (such as fitbits), cameras...  If you're caught with one, the device will be confiscated and you will likely be arrested.  Charges would be determined based on whether it was determined to be accidental or intentional.  Omarosa should have been charged with violating Nationals Security Rules and Regulations established by DHS and the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Omarosa break the law by secretly taping her firing in White House Situation Room?
> 
> 
> It's not entirely clear whether Omarosa's release of her secret tape of her firing in the White House Situation Room violated criminal law, but she probably should get a lawyer anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Juliette Kayyem, a former top Homeland Security official under President Obama who is now a CNN national security analyst, was aghast at Omarosa's admission during Sunday's  "Meet the Press" show, the official start of Omarosa's national book tour...
> 
> ... In a CNN story published Sunday, Kayyem wrote that "external devices" such as smartphones or recorders are strictly prohibited from the Situation Room"...
> 
> ... "The fact that the recording exists is shocking; that it allegedly happened in the most secure room in the White House – known as a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) – would represent a violation of strict internal procedures prohibiting unsecure devices there," Kayyem wrote.  "The goal is to keep America safe."
> 
> Why she wasn't charged, I don't know.  But, Rosenstein conspired to illegally record Trump.
> 
> I'll grant you your ignorance because you don't work in this environment.  But you're speaking out of your ass if you think this would not be a violation of the law governing SCIF and protected government facilities.  You ought to stick to what you know.


Her violation would have been recording in the SCIF, not breaking recording law.

Again, where did they say anything about an illegal recording? The vast majority of the whitehouse is not a SCIF area and employees and visitors can and do carry electronic devices.


----------



## Midnightrider

LightRoasted said:


> If I may ...
> 
> DC law is not superior to Federal law. That also means that DC law has no jurisdiction in Federal buildings. Once one steps into a Federal building, Federal law immediately applies over that of the district. Just look at all the security signage. Everything law quoted as, "in violation off", is, (United State Code), USC this and USC that. Everyone who is anyone knows what applies.


And federal law only requires the consent of one party


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Her violation would have been recording in the SCIF, not breaking recording law.
> 
> Again, where did they say anything about an illegal recording? The vast majority of the whitehouse is not a SCIF area and employees and visitors can and do carry electronic devices.



I'm saying it would have been illegal.  What the media reports is out the same ignorance as your operating on; a fundamental lack of understand of the rules that govern secure government facilities. 

Here's a challenge for you... strap a recording device to your body and try to get in the White House with it.  Let us know how things go.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> And federal law only requires the consent of one party



And how could Trump or anyone else have consented to something they didn't know was happening?


----------



## TCROW

PsyOps said:


> Here's a challenge for you... strap a recording device to your body and try to get in the White House with it.  Let us know how things go.



You mean like a modern smartphone with an app for recording using the built-in mic? Are you saying I wouldn’t be able to get into the WH with that in my back pocket?


----------



## Gilligan

PsyOps said:


> Here's a challenge for you... strap a recording device to your body and try to get in the White House with it.  Let us know how things go.


I'd pay $1000 to watch him do that.


----------



## PsyOps

TCROW said:


> You mean like a modern smartphone with an app for recording using the built-in mic? Are you saying I wouldn’t be able to get into the WH with that in my back pocket?











						How Can I Tour the White House in DC? | Washington DC
					

Here’s how to request and book a White House tour, what to expect when you visit, how to get to the White House, where to store your belongings and much more.




					washington.org
				




"Note that smartphones and compact cameras with a lens no longer than 3 inches are permitted on the public tour route, but video recording devices and flash photography are not allowed inside the White House. Visitors will go through security prior to entering the White House."

We really are talking about places where ordinary citizens can't get go: Oval Office, Situation Room... where recording devices are only allowed when approved and all parties are away they are being recorded.  Rosenstein was talking about SNEAKING a recording device into the WH.  If he is authorized to record in the WH, why would be need to sneak it in?  

What is wrong with you people and your logic?


----------



## TCROW

PsyOps said:


> How Can I Tour the White House in DC? | Washington DC
> 
> 
> Here’s how to request and book a White House tour, what to expect when you visit, how to get to the White House, where to store your belongings and much more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washington.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Note that smartphones and compact cameras with a lens no longer than 3 inches are permitted on the public tour route, but video recording devices and flash photography are not allowed inside the White House. Visitors will go through security prior to entering the White House."
> 
> We really are talking about places where ordinary citizens can't get go: Oval Office, Situation Room... where recording devices are only allowed when approved and all parties are away they are being recorded.  Rosenstein was talking about SNEAKING a recording device into the WH.  If he is authorized to record in the WH, why would be need to sneak it in?
> 
> What is wrong with you people and your logic?



I'm not asking about visiting as a tourist.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> I'm saying it would have been illegal.  What the media reports is out the same ignorance as your operating on; a fundamental lack of understand of the rules that govern secure government facilities.
> 
> Here's a challenge for you... strap a recording device to your body and try to get in the White House with it.  Let us know how things go.



You saying it doesn’t make it so. If it were omarosa would have been charged. The federal and DC laws both say it is a one party consent jurisdiction. 

Like I said, staffers and visitors keep their phones in MOST parts of the whitehouse. That in and of itself says that your claims of a completely secure facility are misguided. 


PsyOps said:


> And how could Trump or anyone else have consented to something they didn't know was happening?


Talk about speaking from a place of ignorance. The one party is the one doing the recording.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> How Can I Tour the White House in DC? | Washington DC
> 
> 
> Here’s how to request and book a White House tour, what to expect when you visit, how to get to the White House, where to store your belongings and much more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washington.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Note that smartphones and compact cameras with a lens no longer than 3 inches are permitted on the public tour route, but video recording devices and flash photography are not allowed inside the White House. Visitors will go through security prior to entering the White House."
> 
> We really are talking about places where ordinary citizens can't get go: Oval Office, Situation Room... where recording devices are only allowed when approved and all parties are away they are being recorded.  _*Rosenstein was talking about SNEAKING a recording device into the WH.  If he is authorized to record in the WH, why would be need to sneak it in? *_
> 
> _*What is wrong with you people and your logic?*_



If he doesn’t conceal it trump isn’t going to say anything stupid. 

Do you think undercover cops tell their suspects they are being recorded?  Do you think that means the undercover cop is doing someth8ng illegal? The whole idea of a concealed wire that the person being recorded doesn’t know.


----------



## This_person

TCROW said:


> You mean like a modern smartphone with an app for recording using the built-in mic? Are you saying I wouldn’t be able to get into the WH with that in my back pocket?


I suspect that it would be something you sign for access to a private, policy-decision type of meeting with the president.

I'm pretty sure they let phones in the building, since most everyone there has one.  I equally am pretty sure that there is a prohibition on recording policy discussions and releasing those discussions without permission of the principals.


----------

